Faculty Development Stand-Alone Report 1 (Progress)

Dickinson Summer Seminars on Teaching Physics Using Interactive Teaching Methods on Computers

Return to Table of Contents

Previous Page

IV. Students

Number of students reached using ITMC methods: The average respondent reported teaching a total of about 600 students using ITMC methods, for a total sum of 50,000+ students taught using ITMC, overall (n=83).

Since many of those who did not respond were still completing graduate school or have since retired, it is unlikely that these individuals would have had the same sort of impact on the number of students taught as those who responded. Others may not have responded because they had drifted away from ITMC and did not find the survey relevant to their current teaching. These groups would likely report much lower numbers of students reached if they had responded.

At the same time, a significant minority, about one-third of all those who did not respond, simply could not be reached (e.g., mail returned to sender). It seems reasonable to assume that these individuals -- if they could be reached -- would report average numbers somewhere in the middle, between the average of 600 for those responding and the presumed low average for those not responding with cause. If we assume the non-responding group, as a whole, reached only one-third the number of students on average that the responding group did (200 students for the non-responding group vs. 600 students for the responding group), one could then speculate that the non-responding group reached approximately 34,000 students.

Therefore, overall, we can estimate that approximately 84,000 students have learned physics in courses taught by seminar alumni, using ITMC techniques.

Seminar participants took the ITMC seminars anywhere between one and six years ago. If we assume that, on average, seminar participants have been teaching 3 years since taking the seminar, it would follow that each seminar participant teaches about 120 students a year using ITMC

Now, with the summer seminar class of ‘97 added in, there are a total of about 290 seminar alumni. If we assume an annual ITMC mortality rate of 15% (e.g., due to deaths, retirements, and those who drift away from ITMC), that means there are about 250 seminar alums teaching approximately 120 students a year, or about 30,000 new students per year being taught physics using ITMC approaches. If current trends hold, each successive class of approximately 60 seminar participants will add another 7,000 students a year to the current annual ITMC teaching load of 30,000 students.

Another way to assess the impact of future seminars is to estimate the number of students each seminar participant is likely to teach using ITMC methods over the course of a career. Assuming that new Ph.D.s are typically about 28 years old when they begin teaching college physics full time (obviously, this age will be lower for those who teach high school), and given that the average years of experience reported by respondents was 19, we might conclude that the typical respondent is in his or her mid-forties, with at least 15 years of teaching to come (even when allowing for sabbaticals). If, on average, each seminar participant teaches 120 students per year for fifteen years, approximately 1800 students would be taught ITMC physics over the course of a typical seminar participant’s career.

Student reactions to ITMC: Respondents report that nearly two-thirds of their students enjoy the ITMC approach (62%), while one in six seem to be ambivalent (17%). A slim percentage find the approach frustrating (9%; see Chart 17). Sometimes there are students among this slim minority who are especially vocal about their frustrations, poisoning the well for others in the class, perhaps. This issue will be addressed later, in the recommendations section.

While the pie chart, above, aggregates responses, the area chart, below, specifies respondent perceptions of student reactions case-by-case. There does not seem to be any pattern beyond the obvious, overwhelming perception that, overall, most students enjoy ITMC. Four respondents report being entirely unclear about student perceptions (5%), and 14 more respondents felt that less than a majority of their students seemed to enjoy the ITMC approach (17%). The percentage of students perceived to be enjoying ITMC crosses the 50% line after only 18 cases and steps steadily upward to 100% thereafter. Only one respondent in 84 reported that a majority of students were frustrated with ITMC (see Chart 18).

Student learning: Respondents report that half of all students seem to strengthen their conceptual understanding when ITMC approaches are used. About one-quarter of all students seemed to be unaffected by the approach, while a very slim percentage (5%) seemed to do worse.

Once again, the pie chart (below) aggregates responses, and the area chart below it specifies respondent perceptions on a case-by-case basis. There is not quite as much "good news" here (green = students do better conceptually) as there was in the pie and area charts on perceptions of student attitudes above (green = students enjoy ITMC). At the same time, there is much less "bad news" reported here (red = students do worse conceptually) than there was in the pie and area charts on perceptions of student attitudes above (red = students frustrated with ITMC). Moreover, the bad news is distributed more evenly across the cases.

Ten respondents reported that they could not assess student conceptual understanding (13%) and one respondent indicated that there was no improvement (this respondent indicated that everyone stayed about the same). Twenty more reported that less than half their classes did better (26%) with most of the rest of the students taught by these respondents falling in the about the same or unknown impact categories. The remaining 47 respondents indicated that at least half the class learned more (60%), and 33 reported that 70% or more of the class did better (42%).

Overall, Chart 19 suggests that ITMC methods have either a positive impact on student learning (50%), or at least do no harm (26% ) when it comes to the conceptual understanding that students achieve. The smaller gray area -- indicating impact unknown suggests that perhaps teachers and instructors of physics need better tools or more practice with tools designed to assess the conceptual understanding that students obtain, regardless of the methods used.

It should be noted that student frustration does not always mean that students do not learn more using ITMC. Even Respondent 73, the individual referred to above who reported a high degree (70%) of student frustration, went on to report that 30% of his students actually did better, conceptually, with ITMC, with 50% performing at about the same level. This respondent reported that only 5% did worse. (Respondent 73 put the remainder -- 15% -- in the unknown category; see Chart 20).

In fact, when plotting students frustrated against students do worse, it becomes clear that the vast majority of students who ARE frustrated with ITMC do NOT, in fact, do worse conceptually with this teaching method. The blue students do worse line spikes above the students frustrated line in only three cases (4% of valid cases: see chart below). The percentage of students reported to be frustrated with ITMC is matched by the percentage of students reported to be doing worse in another 13 cases (17%). In the remaining 57 cases in which some frustration was reported, the percentage of students reported to be doing worse was lower, in many cases significantly lower (e.g., see cases 68-76 in the chart, below), than the percentage of students reported to be frustrated. Seminar participants might be forewarned about this phenomenon; that student frustrations that become manifest as the course unfolds do NOT necessarily translate into poor performance after the course has been completed (see Chart 21).

Teaching Assessment: Teachers assessed student performance in a number of ways, most often through traditional multiple choice (40) and essay question (40) exams. Quite a few also employed the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE) and the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) as well (see Chart 22).

Techniques Used in Student Assessment

Teaching Elaboration: A wide variety of responses were elicited in answer to the open-ended question dealing with the value of ITMC in the classroom. (Question 14.3 of the survey: Could you comment on the "nature" of the learning students experience using ITMC, versus the nature of the learning using more traditional approaches). One high school teacher indicated the ITMC prevented students from "hiding behind the equation" while another argued that ITMC was preferable because it was "more concrete, more real life to the students, active learning -- hands and minds in motion." A professor at a two-year college indicated that ITMC makes it possible for students to:

"own" the knowledge at a very fundamental level. The ITMC [approach] reinforces actual learning as opposed to rote memorization, evidenced in the ability to solve problems. Students are better able to grasp physical situations and "see" these situations in their "mind’s eye." I have observed that students have a greater flexibility in negotiating the links between the written word, the actual physical situation and the mathematical tools useful for describing these physical situations.

The benefits of ITMC in teaching physics, reported by respondents of this survey, are catalogued in Table 3 below. 

Return to Table of Contents

Next Page